Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:20:06 -0400 | From | Igor Shmukler <> | Subject | Re: intercepting syscalls |
| |
Randy,
> And 'nobody' has submitted patches that handle all of the described > problems... > > 1. racy > 2. architecture-independent > 3. stackable (implies/includes unstackable :) > > You won't get very far in this discussion without some code...
I agree that if races disallow safe loading unloading it's a serious problem. I'll get there pretty soon and I would be very to submit a patch. It makes sense to hide interface if currently there is no safe way to use it. I understand.
I don't think that drivers have to be architecture independent. Why is this a problem?
Same regarding stackability. We have a module that works well with other modules that intercept system calls just not on Linux. There are caveats - not every module will just work with every other module. But same problem is with networking protocols. It took time until IPsec vendors worked out glitches.
Usually, it's not necessary to load/unload module to/from the middle of the stack all the time.
I would even agree that it might be beneficial to develop guidelines for developing stackable modules that intercept system calls, but I think that reasons beyond races are of less importance.
For RH or SuSE it's very different. If they need something like this done, a patch to the kernel and they are good to go. Simple folk still has to make software that works with standard kernels and we have to be given API that allows us to do this.
Igor - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |